IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 17 September 2019 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE5712084D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.348
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYAFedOFeU_i for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408FC1209AD for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=97.112.17.31;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:35:16 -0400
Message-ID: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0167_01D56D54.5C663420"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdVtdHc29FIBUpzKSseFCqrVBuGyHA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190917-6, 09/17/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_ScZsA1jLMOaqZxdYdnBy3w3FUE>
Subject: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:35:21 -0000

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call two related drafts [9/17 to 10/1/2019]


.         draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and 

.         draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt. 

 

You can access these two drafts at the following location: 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment/

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/

 

The authors have pointed out that the adoption of this 

draft since the following  SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been adopted: 

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-00

 

Please consider the following questions in your responses? 

 

1)      Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS 

 

Spring has adopted the draft, but IDR can provide feedback 

to spring about putting this technology in BGP.

 

2)      Is this technology a good way to implement the required 

Features in BGP? 

 

3)      Is this technology ready for adoption? 

 

4)      Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology? 

 

 

Cheers, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email